Greetings, Bruce and All --
I hope you will give some consideration to the voice of a renegade here,
because this approach to Quality is a step in the wrong direction. I say
this not only because the basic premise is flawed, as I will attempt to
show, but because it is clear to me that what Bruce is proposing would not
have Mr. Pirsig's endorsement.
The MoQ postulated by Pirsig is based on Quality as the fundamental Reality.
Any "subset" of Quality is either a "dynamic" level or a "static" pattern.
The levels evolve to a "better" (i.e., higher moral) state, whereas the
patterns remain fixed over time. This paradigm is theorized to encompass
all aspects and processes of the universe, at least insofar as they are
experienced.
Bruce's brainstorm is to make "static" apply to three Quality "states" which
he defines as stasis, declination, and improvement. His idea contradicts
the MoQ in several significant respects.
First of all, the term "static" means "lack of movement, animation, or
progression," so it applies only to the state defined as "stasis". Clearly
a decline or an "improvement" in Quality is not a static state. Moreover,
"declination" (misspelled in the header) is not included in Pirsig's
paradigm. I'm not aware of any mention of Quality regressing or degrading
to a chaotic state in the author's thesis. Also, "improvement" is already
accounted for as the directional "movement" of Dynamic Quality. In short,
Bruce's three proposed "static states" are neither new to the MoQ scheme nor
correctly named.
That would be problematic enough for Pirsig, but in Bruce's analytical
breakdown of this revised scheme he commits a semantic error which changes
the whole context of his argument. In truth, he's not really addressing
Quality as the "subject" of this analysis but as a modifier of the
nominative "states". Consider the headings:
1. Static Quality [the quality of STASIS]
2. Dynamic Quality of IMPROVEMENT
3. Dynamic Quality of DECLINATION
By using the three proposed states "of Quality" as the titles pf his
proposition, Bruce has made the "state" the modus operandi instead of
Quality itself. For example, he says "Static Quality attempts to maintain
the status over time;" "[Improvement's] mission is to improve Quality over
time;" "[Declination's] mission is to diminish or decay Quality over time."
In all three cases it is the "force" or power of a particular state which
effects or produces the Quality change. I'm sure that Pirsig would point
out that "stasis" and "movement" are inherent in Quality itself, that the
resulting conditions or "states" are patterns of Quality.
I don't mean to be critical of Bruce's hypothesis, as it is well conceived
and could conceivably stand on its own as another perspective of existential
reality. Instead of a hierarchy of Quality levels, we could reduce the
dynamics of the universe to Stasis, Dissolution, and Consolidation. (After
all, Hegel is remembered for having reduced all process to Thesis,
Antithesis, and Synthesis.)
The point of my critique is that this is Bruce Underwood's concept, not
Robert Pirsig's Quality thesis.
Respectfully submitted,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hello Folks,
I have been wrestling with this idea for a while and thought I would throw
it out here for comments and banter. I hope to do better about responding,
but it is hard to find the time to respond as I would like to.
The idea here started off by thinking of what "Static" means and applying
that to three areas: Stasis, declination and improvement. As many of you
have seen, I think that Chaos is the state where something has declined from
organization to an absolute state of disorganization and is thus the
opposite of Quality. However,energy still exists, but in a disorganized
state. Dynamic Quality will continue to affect the energy. I see things as
energy either moving towards improved organization or moving towards chaotic
disorder. Below is a link to an image that depicts what I have been thinking
about. You may want to think of it as life as you view it or most any item
that is static.
http://www.thinnerself.com/quality_of_improvement.gif
I was thinking about this and came to think of "Quality" as being in one of
three states “Quality” states:
Static Quality:
Static Quality attempts to maintain the status over time. Static Quality’s
position is to neither improve nor decay, but to maintain status quo.
However, from an energy stand point, Static Quality must consume energy in
order to maintain its position to not be consumed by Dynamic Quality of
Chaos or Dynamic Quality of Improvement. By default then it would appear
that Static Quality is a destructive force by nature as it consumes energy
to remain static.
Dynamic Quality of improvement:
Its mission is to improve Quality over time by destruction and construction
and to establish ratchet points of Quality. By nature, it consumes energy to
move forward towards in a positive direction over time.
Dynamic Quality of declination:
It mission is to diminishes or decay Quality over time. Items move towards
chaos and are being consumed in destruction. The only state of "true Static
Quality" is a state of total disorganization of energy into a chaotic state.
Thanks for your thoughts and responses,
Bruce
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
